I don't remember saying that you were on the wrong side mate.
Not at all. Because I know myself. I know where I stand. You are standing a a shaky ground, made of prejudice and amalgams. I'll keep standing and you will eventually fall or become even more radical. That's the way it goes for rightist. I know it, because I was at your place first.
Tf does this mean then lmao
 
Tf does this mean then lmao
This >
You literally are for putting limits on freedom of speech. You're also anti liberal.
Lmao bruh even in Palestine they’re throwing the buzzwords around
That is normalizing violence. You’re giving one side a pass to be as violent as possible while the other has to be a Buddhist monk. That is irrational.
I would never tell a white person they can't talk about racism or oppressions just because they're white. I mean, you speak about it and idgaf.
Then you lose the very people you claim to fight for because you start rioting. It’s as simple as that.
Here you are showing very distinctive trait of rightist and liberals:
- The vision that freedom of speech should be absolute
- The denial of Queer and militant rethoric
- The missunderstanding of the notion of domination and power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.
- The denial of the notion that the ones who face oppression are the best placed to talk about said oppression
- The reversal of the responsibility of oppression against rioters and not the ones who oppressed them
wake up to reality big boy lol

humanity never really changed

we're still as savage as any other beast but with a facade on
Cool, time to change that then.
 
This >






Here you are showing very distinctive trait of rightist and liberals:
- The vision that freedom of speech should be absolute
- The denial of Queer and militant rethoric
- The missunderstanding of the notion of domination and power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.
- The denial of the notion that the ones who face oppression are the best placed to talk about said oppression
- The reversal of the responsibility of oppression against rioters and not the ones who oppressed them

Cool, time to change that then.
Dude,you have been doing this for over a year and you convinced 0 users.You are wasting your time.
 
Damn if those are my greatest hits here I'm killing it :steef:



Here you are showing very distinctive trait of rightist and liberals:
- The vision that freedom of speech should be absolute
Right wingers dont believe freedom of speech should be asbolute lol, anyways I am pretty sure I've said everybody believes in limits to freedom of speech

- The denial of Queer and militant rethoric
Denying? I aint't denying shit. I just find it stupid and a big red flag of someone who has no clue what the fuck are they saying.



- The missunderstanding of the notion of domination and power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.
bruh, you have literally never read Marx. What exactly do you think he talks about :kobeha:


- The denial of the notion that the ones who face oppression are the best placed to talk about said oppression
Okay, then shut the fuck up about anything not related to LGBT issues then. If not then you're as much as in denial as I am.


- The reversal of the responsibility of oppression against rioters and not the ones who oppressed them
????

No reversal, it's called being pragmatic. Look up Nelson Mandela and the ANC. He tried hard to distance himself from the violent aspects of it and had to convince the white citizens that there won't be any violent retribution on them when apartheid would be abolished. You show lack of political knowledge, just outright naiveté


Anyways lol, its funny how you backtracked back to I am a rightist because you got caught lying :hihihi:
 
Right wingers dont believe freedom of speech should be asbolute lol
Of course they do lol. You missed the Elon musk arc mate. The entire right wing, from liberal to straight up fascist have only one word in mouth: "My absolute freedom of speech"


I am pretty sure I've said everybody believes in limits to freedom of speech
THen I didn't see that. Because pretty much everyone on the thread was agreeing that I was wrong to set limits to freespeech, you included.


Denying? I aint't denying shit. I just find it stupid and a big red flag of someone who has no clue what the fuck are they saying.
My point exactly.


bruh, you have literally never read Marx. What exactly do you think he talks about
I don't need to read Marx to know some basic sociological principles. Marx is not everything mate. And in that case, you were out.


Okay, then shut the fuck up about anything not related to LGBT issues then. If not then you're as much as in denial as I am.
I will do that the day I see LGBTQ+ people starting to go against transphobes/LGBTQ+ people on this forum. I want nothing more than to shut up and let them fry those bigoted down.

No reversal, it's called being pragmatic. Look up Nelson Mandela and the ACN. He tried hard to distance himself from the violent aspects of it and had to convince the white citizens that there won't be any violent retribution on them when apartheid would be abolished.
You are completely confusing situations here which means that either you are from bad faith or you still don't understand the issue.

People in France were not rioting to get revenge on a community or white people, they were rioting against the system to CHANGE IT. Simply because they had no other (I still have no other) alternatives.

Actually, I thought you were centrist, then I saw all those quote. And you are definitely a liberal. Which make you center right at best.

  • the oppressors
  • the oppressed
  • the oppressor's collaborators aka beaten housewifes who cover for their drunk husband
No, in your example the third case is also the oppressed. Not a collaborator. Collaborator are part of the group of the oppressors.





.
 

Live from this thread, discussing with C4N.
The individual that said it was written in stone that C was gonna join the strawhats.
Mr. Shiny Nakama action.
Mister I am a furry and I am gonna create a persona entirely revolving around LGBT issues to deflect people calling me out for my furry-ness.
 
I don't need to read Marx to know some basic sociological principles. Marx is not everything mate. And in that case, you were out.
So you didn't read Marx' Capital ?
Post automatically merged:

No, in your example the third case is also the oppressed. Not a collaborator. Collaborator are part of the group of the oppressors.
Collaborators, co-abusers, call them what you will. They feel powerful when enabling the oppressor ,at the same time they are both victims as well as oppressors themselves. Most people belong to this 3rd group
 
Mister I am a furry and I am gonna create a persona entirely revolving around LGBT issues to deflect people calling me out for my furry-ness
What the F are you saying. I'm not a furry and I'm not LGBTQ+ can you stop lying please ?


So you didn't read Marx' Capital ?
Not at all. This is too early for me to read Marx. I'm not that radical yet.

Collaborators, co-abusers, call them what you will. They feel powerful when enabling the oppressor ,at the same time they are both victims as well as oppressors themselves. Most people belong to this 3rd group
Those are just oppressors mate. When you benefit from oppression, you are part of this system of domination.

For example: Men are benefiting from the oppression of Women
 
What the F are you saying. I'm not a furry and I'm not LGBTQ+ can you stop lying please ?
We are here to discuss politics, and instead here you are flaming about LGBT issues. So yes, you created this persona that always mention LGBT stuff when you still were going by the C4N and people were calling you furry.
Also, don't you ever accuse me of lying, when you were the one that promised to delete his account and never show up after you were wrong about Carrot.
And the fact that you believe that reading literature means you are radical is exactly why you're what you are. A brainlet.
 
Not at all. This is too early for me to read Marx. I'm not that radical ye
What kind of statement is this? You can read books without agreeing with its content..... by that logic I became a Christian from reading the bible
Post automatically merged:

Those are just oppressors mate. When you benefit from oppression, you are part of this system of domination.

For example: Men are benefiting from the oppression of Women
it's not that simple:lawsigh:
 
Top